A federal judge in Rhode Island has issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from withholding federal transportation funds from states that do not cooperate with immigration enforcement. The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr., declared the policy unconstitutional, stating it violates the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeds Congress’s authority under the Spending Clause.
The decision was prompted by a lawsuit from 20 Democratic-led states, which had challenged the administration’s plan to deny funding to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. The states argued that the policy was an overreach of executive power and violated the separation of powers doctrine. McConnell ordered the administration to cease any enforcement of the policy, effectively halting Trump’s attempt to penalize states for non-compliance with federal immigration laws.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who had repeatedly warned that states resisting federal immigration enforcement could face funding cuts, found himself on the receiving end of a legal challenge. In his most recent comments, Duffy directed his warnings toward California officials, who have distanced themselves from immigration enforcement while riots continue in places like Los Angeles. He emphasized that federal grants come with the obligation to adhere to federal law and reiterated his stance on enforcing immigration rules and ending anti-American DEI policies.
The case highlights the ongoing tensions between the federal government and states over immigration enforcement. While the Trump administration sought to use federal funds as leverage to compel states to cooperate with immigration policies, the courts have stepped in to block such actions, citing constitutional concerns. The ruling underscores the role of the judiciary in checking executive overreach and enforcing federal laws while respecting state autonomy.
Legal experts suggest this decision could have broader implications for future administrations. If a president attempts to use federal funds as a tool to influence state behavior, the judiciary may continue to act as a check on such powers. The ruling also reflects the growing divide in American politics over immigration policy, with states like California taking a more progressive stance while the federal government under Trump seeks to enforce stricter immigration measures.